Lately, Americans have been quick to disparage other countries for their approach to life and death issues. In particular, many Americans have been outraged at the Netherlands policies regarding euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide and the killing of those with mental illnesses.

As Americans, we havent been entirely intellectually honest in addressing why these things have become so prevalent in Europe. After all, we would never allow that kind of immorality or degradation of human life. Not in this great nation. Right?

Wrong.

Americans had better look again and take the time to rethink their value systems. Because if you honestly believe such things dont happen here, Im afraid you may not be paying attention.

The simple fact is that many of us have been successfully conditioned to accept medical killing as a kind, appropriate and compassionate tactic. A great deal of it goes on quietly and out of the harsh light of public view. But, a growing number of families can tell you in no uncertain terms, it happens every single day in the United States.

Embracing death as a medical solution to human problems is nothing new. The attitude is one that has been promoted for decades. The slow but successful indoctrination of our mostly apathetic general public suggests that it is not only acceptable to kill disabled, elderly and vulnerable people, but that such acts are perfectly justifiable.

Only legal in three states, the number of those who have opted for physician assisted suicide may not be staggering. However, what is positively astounding is the very large number of people who, on a regular basis, fall victim to the practice of deliberately killing the cognitively disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill and countless others who are being starved and dehydrated to death.

With the entire world watching, my sister, Terri Schiavo died seven years ago on March 31, 2005 of a court-ordered dehydration  an agonizing death that lasted nearly two weeks. It may have been the first time most people were witness or even considered that this type of inhumane act could happen to an innocent individual. Sadly, Terris case wasnt isolated  it continues and in every imaginable setting.

It seems clear that much of what is happening almost always includes the talk of money. Because health care has become so astronomically costly, bottom-line thinking and profit have started to outweigh the needs and desires of certain people who live at risk.

The very real result, in terms of attitudes and actions, is that more vulnerable American citizens are sitting squarely in the cross-hairs of what appears to be a very real antilife establishment. Such attitudes put each and every one of us at risk.

When a person reaches a certain age, or their physical capabilities become profoundly limited and no longer are able to do what an able person can do, what happens?

Working to shape public policy, bioethicists and proponents of choice in dying do their in work in very subtle ways  reaching for buzzwords that soothe the general public into thinking death is the appropriate medical solution to complicated human conditions.

Indeed, their attempts at shifting our societal attitudes towards life, health, disability and death have been tremendously successful. The marketing, packaging and selling of forced death as a solution has brought the United States equal with those countries with which we find fault. We, truly, are no better.

How did this happen?

There are several dynamics at play and many people, who are experts in medical ethics, would probably outline the core issues in this way:

We re-defined basic care. In most states, the provision of food and water is statutorily defined as medical treatment. That enables health care providers and family members to deny this kind of basic care with the intent of causing death. This happens to people who are not dying, not stricken with illness and the elderly who unable to safely feed themselves.

We embraced ethics committees. According to a 2005 report by the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics, the laws of 40 states allow doctors and hospital ethics committees to disregard advance directives when they call for treatment, food or fluids. Perhaps the term death panels doesnt seem so funny anymore, does it?

We tolerated the Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) diagnosis. PVS was established in 1972 by physicians, and it is often used as a criterion to kill the cognitively disabled. This is precisely the diagnosis used in Terris case. Consider, if you will, how profoundly offensive it is to refer to anyone as a vegetable.

Clearly, this term is meant to condition you to think less of a disabled person. There is another problem. PVS is misdiagnosed upwards of 50% of the time, according to a number of published studies. Even though the diagnosis is largely unscientific, it can be a death warrant to a patient with profound cognitive disabilities.

We embraced a flawed personhood theory. Some bioethicists have defined human beings as human non-persons, based on their ability to interact in meaningful ways  a benchmark that is subjective in every way. If someone doesnt meet this criterion, theirs is a life no longer worth living. Indeed, personhood theory is being taught to our future physicians and health care professionals in some of our most prominent universities. Its a sad and odd to note that, in the final decade of his life, President Ronald Reagan became according to these bioethicists a human non-person because of his Alzheimers.

The final stroke? Verbal engineering. Putting words in our public discourse and vernacularwords that people will repeat without thought, words that are intended to be the means to an end. The concept is simple, efficient and it works. As an example of this, read an article by Wesley J. Smith and Rita Marker titled, Words, Words, Words. They explain how various words and phrases have had a profound impact on the public, numbing them into accepting things that they know are negative.

Truly, the desensitization in our culture has become so intense that those who compare the dehumanization of disabled people to the atrocities in Germany prior to the Holocaust are now labeled fanatics. Yet, the very same people that were eliminated in Nazi Germanythe cognitively disabledare being eliminated now for the very same reasons. They are seen as inferior. Burdens. Not quite complete humans.

Obviously, there is more than just culture-jamming that goes into this insidious movement. But it has become apparent to me that the death culture is not only winning, its gaining broad support.

Clearly, the reasons are out there for one and all to see. Health, life and longevity have become direct threats to profitability and the bottom line. That's why I fear those behind this death movement will not only continue, but it will intensify.

Even if you and I think its horrible, even if you believe that starving and dehydrating vulnerable people to death is abhorrent and even though we see some politicians wringing their hands over what is happening to people at risk, the question that still remains is simply this: What is being done to stop it?

Is anybody really serious about saving lives? Or, did we obediently buy the sales pitch?

Truly, the desensitization in our culture has become so intense that those who compare the dehumanization of disabled people to the atrocities in Germany prior to the Holocaust are now labeled fanatics. Yet, the very same people that were eliminated in Nazi Germanythe cognitively disabledare being eliminated now for the very same reasons. They are seen as inferior. Burdens. Not quite complete humans.

The Hunger Games wasnt the only film to hit box office paydirt this past weekend. Although it only opened in 390 theaters, the anti-abortion drama October Baby, starring John Schneider,earned the second-highest-per-screen average, bringing in almost $2 million in ticket sales.

I was shattered when I first learned about the story. I was moved and mesmerized. I wasnt an activist, I was just someone who was shattered by the truth, director Jon Erwin told FOX411s Pop Tarts. Here is our little film, small budget, in the top ten (at the box office). We are thrilled, blown away.

October Baby follows the emotional journey of a young woman who learns that she was almost aborted, but at the last minute was instead given up for adoption. The film almost didnt see the light of day.

This film couldnt find a home, no studio wanted to touch it. It was considered too controversial, Erwin continued. There was a real moment of despair at one point, the film wasnt finished and nobody would take a look at it. But every time we screened it, it attracted such intense emotional reactions. So we had to raise the money ourselves, and the release process took much longer than we wanted.

WASHINGTON, March 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an unusually candid video addressed to Planned Parenthood, President Obama assured the billion-dollar abortion organization of his continued support and touted his record blocking efforts to defund the group by pro-life professional politicians.

For you and for most Americans, protecting womens health is a mission that stands above politics, said the president in a video posted to Youtube by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Yet in the past year youve had politicians who want to deny millions of women the care they rely on, and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor.

The affirmation comes amidst an onslaught of bad publicity for the abortion giant in recent months: The group is now under federal investigation after reports alleged that it has engaged in systematic Medicaid fraud, abused other federal funds, and routinely evaded state abortion laws.

Planned Parenthoods defensive posture became even clearer last December when prominent breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure cut funding to the group because of the investigation, as well as the fact that Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide direct breast cancer services such as mammograms. After Planned Parenthood and its allies excoriated Komen for the decision, the charity was forced to apologize, but left it unclear whether the grants would resume.

Obama extolled Planned Parenthoods fight for women in the video, suggesting that the group helped women receive mammograms, alongside praise for its efforts providing affordable contraception.

So when some professional politicians casually say that theyll get rid of Planned Parenthood, dont forget what theyre really talking about: eliminating the funding for preventive care that millions of women rely on and leaving them to fend for themselves, said Obama.

Kristan Hawkins, head of Students for Life of America, called it outrageous that Obama would repeat the claim that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms, after extensive coverage pointing out that the abortion organization does not provide the service.

Somehow the White House has missed the memo that PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOESNT PROVIDE MAMMOGRAMS. How could they have missed that? wrote Hawkins.

And why is Planned Parenthood posting videos that say as much, when they have already been caught in the lie?

The president also referred to last years budget negotiation stalemate, in which Obama and House GOP leader John Boehner came to personal loggerheads over the bills Planned Parenthood defunding - the final issue Obama cited in his refusal to sign the bill hours before government shutdown.

When Republicans in Congress threatened to shut down the government over the measure, I had a simple answer: no, Obama said in the video.

The president concluded: I know that Planned Parenthood will continue providing care no matter what. I know youll never stop fighting to protect the health care and the choices that Americas women deserve.

And as long as I have the privilege of being your president, neither will I.

FORT WORTH, Texas - Construction equipment churns away behind a chain link fence, but there's no sign to show what's being built on John Ryan Road in Southwest Fort Worth.

The Gladney Adoption Center right next door, which sold the land to a third party, didn't learn who bought it until Thursday.

One subcontractor didn't find out until just a few hours before he was to pour concrete footings this week.

When he discovered it was a new Planned Parenthood health center where abortions will be performed, he told the general contractor his religious convictions wouldn't allow it.

He walked off the job. He told News 8 other construction workers are also raising religious objections.

The president of Planned Parenthood of North Texas said there's a reason the organization's name is not on the project.

"From the beginning, we intended to be public with this project," Ken Lambrecht said. "We wanted to choose the right time, so that our contractors wouldn't have to endure the harassment and intimidation that Planned Parenthood staffers and patients must endure on a day-to-day basis."

(TEHRAN) - Peter Singer is a world-renowned Australian philosopher and bio-ethicist. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. Singer specializes in applied ethics and is known for his secular and preference utilitarian viewpoints. In 2004, he was recognized as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. Peter Singer holds controversial and widely contested viewpoints regarding abortion, infanticide and euthanasia and has written several articles and books on these subjects.

His 1975 book "Animal Liberation" is considered to be the hallmark of animal liberation movement. His other important books are "Rethinking Life and Death" and "Practical Ethics."

To me as a Muslim journalist, Singer's opinions and ideas have always seemed objectionable and irrational. According to the teachings of Islam, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are unlawful and impermissible. Islam says that human fetus is a conscious being and does have the capacity to determine its future if given the opportunity, so it's illegal to seize its life. Therefore, I conducted an interview with Prof. Singer to challenge his standpoints and ask some questions regarding the why-ness of holding such controversial and unconventional beliefs. What follows is the complete text of our conversation. Peter's answers are rather brief as compared to my elaborate questions; however, I think it has become a readable debate.

Kourosh Ziabari: why do you advocate voluntary euthanasia and abortion? I think the traditionalists and religious thinkers are right in their position that killing a human fetus or a newborn or someone suffering from a terminal or incurable disease is immoral and contrary to the laws of creation and the will of the Creator. Does it provide a justification for killing a fetus or a newborn that they don't possess the essential characteristics of personhood such as rationality, autonomy and self-consciousnesses? After all, they are living beings, even if they are unable to reason or determine their fate. If allowed to be born and grow, the fetus or the newborn will turn into complete, rational human beings. Do we have the permission to deprive them of the right which the God has bestowed upon them? To put it in other words, are we the ones who decide our birth that want to be the decider of our death?

Peter Singer: I think if we are to discuss such issues at all, I need to make it clear that I do not share your assumptions about God, or a Creator. I do not believe that there is such a being. I accept a scientific view of the origins of the world, and of life, so I do not think there is a god who has bestowed rights on any beings.

Given that, then it follows, indeed, that we are the ones who have to make decisions about life and death. And if a person is terminally ill, and because of the poor quality of his or her life does not want to go on living for the last few days, or weeks or months that he or she could live for, who better to make that decision than the person whose life it is? Why should the state interfere in this choice?

As for abortion, you write that the fetus is a living being. I agree. But so is a sheep, or a cow, or a chicken, or a dog. Why should a fetus have more of a right to life than they do? After all, they are conscious beings, able to suffer, in ways that the fetus, at least early in pregnancy, cannot.

I know that some people will object that the fetus has a potential to become a rational human being, which the sheep or cow does not. But the world already has 7 billion humans in it, and this is causing enormous environmental problems, especially with regard to climate change. I do not think we need more human beings on this planet.

KZ: in a 2009 New York Times article, you raised the example of a patient suffering from advanced kidney cancer who is told that will be dying in the next year or two, but can be given an extra six months at the cost of a $54,000 medicine. Then you asked that "is a few more months worth that much?" Don't you really believe that that few more months are really worth spending $54,000? Won't the life of all of us become meaningless and hollow if we sit back and wait until our death comes and takes our life? It's hopefulness that makes the life significant. Don't you believe that the human being should do its best to live as much as possible and enjoy his life in the best way he can? Of course I'm not talking about mere pleasure and happiness, but alluding to the fact that the life of human being is the most precious gift he is endowed with. Don't you think so?

PS: Yes, I agree that human beings should enjoy life as much as possible. But my point is that there are limited resources, and even the richest nation cannot afford to do everything possible to extend the life of every person. So if we spend $54,000 to extend the life of a person with advanced kidney cancer for six months, then there is something else we are not doing that would save the life of someone who could live longer, perhaps for years. And if we were to give the money to an organization working to stop malaria in Africa, we could save someones life for much, much less  perhaps for just $1000, we could save the life of a child who will live for another 50 years. So for $54,000 we might be able to save the lives of 54 children. Isnt that better than extending the life of one person for only 6 months?

When resources are limited  as they always are  we should try to get the best possible use from them.

KZ: with all due respect, I believe that the points which you raised in your book the "Animal Liberation" are contradictory to your viewpoints about physician-assisted suicide, infanticide and euthanasia. You associate a great value to the life of animals and hold that "the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color" while permitting abortion or euthanasia on grounds that people are entitled to determine the manner or time of their death. You have argued many times that animals will be more deserving of life than certain humans, including disabled babies and adults who are brain-injured or in vegetative comas. But don't you think that this argument is unfair?

Your book converted many readers to lifelong vegetarianism and inspired reforms in humane treatment for laboratory animals and livestock. So, isn't the life of human being as valuable as that of the animals? Shouldn't we try our best to preserve the life of human beings as much as possible?

PS: No, there is no contradiction. I think we should give equal consideration to the similar interests of all beings, whether they are human or nonhuman animals. So yes, the life of a normal healthy human being is at least as valuable as that of a nonhuman animal. In fact I think it is normally more valuable, because of the particular interest that a normal human has in the future  humans make plans for the future and hope to achieve things in the future, in ways that nonhuman animals cannot.

On the other hand, as I already said in answer to one of your earlier questions, if a person is very ill and wants to die, then it is in that persons interest to die, and we should allow him to do so.

As for people who are so severely brain-damaged that they can never again be conscious, I dont believe that they have any interest in continuing to live, for they can gain nothing from life any more.

KZ: you're a bioethicist, but you don't believe in the sanctity of life and refute religion. Even though you proposed some of your arguments regarding the uselessness of religion for morality in the article the "Godless Morality," but it's still astounding to me that why you don't believe in the power of religion and its connection with morality. Let's put aside the human religions such as Buddhism and Sikhism. All of the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) have morality and ethics as their theoretical and ideological foundations. Islam, for example, says that all of the sins are kept in a room, and "lie" is the key of that closed room. So, why don't you believe in the necessity of religion for morality?

PS: Long ago, Plato argued that there must be a basis for morality that is independent of religion. For if someone who believes in the existence of God wants to say that God is good, what is he saying, if all ideas of morality come from God? He seems to be saying that God is approved of by God. But that is meaningless. On the other hand, if there is a God who is not good, then that God is just a tyrant. Why should we obey him?

Some of the most ethical people in the world have been atheists. Even today, the two greatest philanthropists in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are not religious. And many religious people commit terrible crimes. So there is no necessary connection between religion and morality, neither in theory nor in practice.

KZ: why do you deny Thomas Hobbes's viewpoint on the rule of law and adherence to codes of morality in presence of the state? At least in the developing countries such as Iran, people need the forceful presence of an authority to persuade them to follow the social laws and morality codes. Without the presence of police, for instance, the traffic laws and regulations are meaningless in a country like Iran. What's your take on that?

PS: I am not sure what it is that you think I deny. I certainly agree that the state needs to use force at times, to ensure adherence to the law. But that does not mean that I think, as Hobbes does, that morality depends on a social contract, or that there can be no morality without a state.

KZ: in your article "Famine, Affluence and Morality" in 1971, you spoke of the suffering of Bengali people in India who were subject to severe famine, lack of food, shelter and medical care at that time. Your raised some arguments including the necessity of giving assistance to the subjugated people in dire need of help and the importance of preventing bad things from happening. You're arguments are comprehensible and well-structured. But what is happening in practice is far from what it should be. For example, we can consider the example of this year's drought and famine in Somalia. The U.S. and other Western states dispatched the least humanitarian convoys to Somalia and dedicated the lowest amounts of monetary assistance to the famine-stricken country. What's the reason in your view? Isn't it that morality is consigned to oblivion in the industrialized, developed world? Isn't it that the citizens of prosperous and economically affluent societies such as the United States are inattentive to humanitarian affairs and morality?

PS: Why do you say that Western states donated the least assistance to Somalia? What figures are you basing that claim on? To the best of my knowledge, most of the aid that has gone to Somalia has come from Western nations, just as most of the aid that goes to the global poor also comes from Western nations. Of course, I agree that the rich Western nations should do much more, but it is also a great shame that the oil-rich states of the Middle East do not use their wealth to help the worlds poorest people.

I hope that some of your readers will go to my website, www.thelifeyoucansave.com and will make a personal pledge to share some of their income with people who are much poorer than they are.

KZ: do you see any significant relationship between morality and the culture of consumerism? Can we argue that the more consumerism penetrates into the society, the more morality declines and turns down?

PS: I dont think it is quite so simple as that. Although I agree that there is too much emphasis on consuming things, I also think that we are making progress in morality, and there is more concern for the poor, for the environment, and for animals, than there used to be. I am also pleased to see that there is now wider acceptance of the equality of women, and that homosexuals are no longer persecuted in the way that they were 50 years ago. These things are all improvements in morality.

KZ: at the beginning of your "Ethics" entry for the Encyclopedia Britannica, you raised a number of questions the answers to which deal with the discipline of moral philosophy. One of them was that "If conscripted to fight in a war we do not support, should we disobey the law?" I want to know your answer to this very question. Do you believe that in the contemporary world which is witness to destructive and lethal wars and conflicts, people should refuse to comply with their nationalistic obligations and avoid taking part in wars which will inevitably lead to the killing of innocent civilians? In a broader sense and with regards to countries with fragile political structures which are prone to revolutions and popular uprisings, is joining the opposition and voicing support for the contenders of the government considered to be immoral and a kind of betrayal to the republican values? To put it more succinctly, I want to raise the example of Iran. In Iran, the majority of people are satisfied with the way the government handles the country's affairs; however, there's a significant minority which is at odds with the government. We have also powerful opposition groups and parties outside the country, including some terrorist groups such as PKK, PJAK and MKO who want to topple the government at the cost of the lives of innocent people. Is allying with them and supporting them moral, in your view?

PS: I do not think that anyone should ally with terrorist organizations, ever. But I do believe that the people of Iran should be able to vote for their rulers, and I mean, for the people with ultimate power to decide the future of their country. So I would like to see a peaceful opposition movement in Iran that moves the country towards true democracy. Such a movement has happened recently in Tunisia, and also in Egypt, although it is certainly running into greater difficulties there because of the resistance of the military to losing power. But if this can happen in Tunisia and Egypt, why not in Iran?

KZ: does culture influence the value of moral action? Can we find conceptions and behaviors which are moral in a certain culture but are considered to be immoral and unethical in another? I want to know if culture influences the quality of moral action and the morality of deeds and social behaviors. Does such an impact exist? Of course you've talked about the universality of ethics and argued that there are no ethical universals, because as you have put it, "there is so much variation from one culture to another that no single principle or judgment is generally accepted" but I think some concepts such as abnegation, sacrifice, truthfulness, honesty and loyalty have the same meaning in the all the cultures around the world. What's your take on that?

PS: I do not recognize the quote you have above. In fact I do believe that there are some ethical universals, even though there is also a great deal of cultural variation. But the principle of reciprocity, or example, appears to be universal, as is the obligations of parents to support their children. I also think that there are more fundamental universal moral truths, like having equal consideration for the interests of all, which may not be recognized everywhere yet, but one day will be.

KZ: according to the Sophist Thrasymachus, "the concept of justice means nothing more than obedience to the laws of society, and, since these laws are made by the strongest political group in their own interests, justice represents nothing but the interests of the stronger." What's your viewpoint regarding his argument? After all, there should be an authority to administer justice and proclaim the foundations and bases of justice. Is it right to deny that the distinction between right and wrong has any objective basis, only because those who set the rules of justice are in power and have authority and abiding by their rules would mean obedience to power?

PS: I do not accept the cynical view of morality put forward by Thrasymachus. What the strongest political group says is right is often not right at all. It may be that just as there are truths of mathematics, so there are moral truths, for example that suffering is bad. These truths may often not be fully accepted in a community, because we humans tend to be selfish or nationalistic in our outlook. That is understandable, for evolutionary reasons, but it does not make it right.

10
posted on 04/15/2012 11:15:50 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

EUREKA, California, April 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Although Planned Parenthood has frequently complained of pro-life prayer vigils - particularly the biannual 40 Days for Life Campaign - one California Planned Parenthood affiliate seems to have chosen an unusually direct way of countering such efforts.

Last month, Six Rivers Planned Parenthood (SRPP) of Eureka, California, launched a campaign called the 40 Days of Prayer: Supporting Women Everywhere. The campaign, as noticed by Liberty Counsel, lists 40 different prayers for those involved in the sacred care of abortions to continue protecting, providing, and embracing the procedure - including mothers, escorts, abortionists, and everyone involved except the unborn children.

Some examples include Day 14, a prayer for Christians everywhere to embrace the loving model of Jesus in the way he refused to shame women, and Day 38, for a cloud of gentleness to surround every abortion facility. May everyone feel calm and loving.

The event is scheduled from March 18 to April 27 and includes several local gatherings in celebration of women and reproductive rights, according to a press release.

The campaign is being advertised under SRPPs Clergy for Choice, who bill themselves as religious leaders who value all human life. The prayers themselves are credited to Faith Aloud, a religious and ethical voice for reproductive justice based in St. Louis.

The event appears to mimic an increasingly prominent thorn in Planned Parenthoods side.

The 40 Days for Life Campaign, an emphatically peaceful prayer and fasting event in hundreds of cities in the U.S. and around the world, has reported saving at least 5,838 children from abortion, closing 22 abortion clinics, and prompting 69 providers walk away from abortion work since its inception in 2007.

Planned Parenthood affiliates have derided the campaign as 40 days and nights of intimidation and harassment and routinely encourage supporters to pledge a donation for every new pro-life witness praying outside abortion clinics during the events.

Liberty Counsel likened Planned Parenthoods latest tactic to Nazi Germanys attempts to use religion to dehumanize the portions of society they sought to exterminate.

Planned Parenthoods attempts to develop a spiritual aspect to the pro-abortion argument can seem comparable to the religious leaders in Germany who supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It was wrong then and it is wrong now, wrote LC in a press release Tuesday.

David Bereit, National Director of 40 Days for Life, told LifeSiteNews.com that the counter-campaign wasnt entirely new.

Some say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but when that imitation is being used to promote the killing of innocent children, we are anything but flattered, said Bereit.

While he has seen the same prayers mockingly displayed outside during 40 Days for Life campaigns, he said it was the first time he had seen the invocations officially sponsored by a Planned Parenthood affiliate.

Planned Parenthood has stooped to a new low by exploiting pastors and churches to celebrate the slaughter of babies made in Gods image and likeness, he said. They certainly wouldnt be doing this if 40 Days for Life wasnt having a devastating impact on their abortion business!

11
posted on 04/15/2012 11:21:50 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

When Kenneth Warden was diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer, his hospital consultant sent him home to die, ruling that at 78 he was too old to treat.

Even the palliative surgery or chemotherapy that could have eased his distressing symptoms were declared off-limits because of his age.

His distraught daughter Michele Halligan accepted the sad prognosis but was determined her father would spend his last months in comfort. So she paid for him to seen privately by a second doctor to discover what could be done to ease his symptoms.

Thanks to her tenacity, Kenneth got the drugs and surgery he needed  and as a result his cancer was actually cured. Four years on, he is a sprightly 82-year-old who works out at the gym, drives a sports car and competes in a rowing team.

You could call his recovery amazing, says Michele, 51. It is certainly a gift. But the fact is that he was written off because of his age. He was left to suffer so much, and so unnecessarily.

April 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - If an American bioethicist gets her way, all patients evaluated as being in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) would by default have artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) withdrawn unless they have made a prior wish to be kept alive.

In the March 2012 issue of Bioethics, Dr. Catherine Constable argues that in the absence of clear evidence that the patient would opt for this existence over death, keeping him alive by any means of assistance is ethically more problematic than allowing him to die.

Terri Schiavo was declared to be in a PVS state and despite intense opposition from her parents and thousands of supporters, her food and water were withdrawn causing her to experience a slow, painful death.

Constables article however, does not appear to adequately confront recent research indicating that many patients have been misdiagnosed as PVS and have in fact had functioning, fully conscious brains. They have been unable to communicate their situation to caregivers and to those who in many cases made misguided decisions to end their lives. The highly respected Discover Magazine published a dramatic report on such research last year.

The term PVS itself is also being increasingly being challenged as inappropriate for human beings who it is argued can never be considered to be vegetative.

Constable, who teaches at New York University School of Medicine but who studied bioethics at the Ethox Centre at Oxford University, justifies her position using the philosophical premise of Peter Singer that [whether or not] a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that beings life. She drew heavily on Singers method for valuing persons in terms of consciousness that allows him to argue that the most significant ethically relevant characteristic of human beings whose brains have ceased to function is not that they are members of our species, but that they have no prospect of regaining consciousness.

Constable runs with Singers line of reasoning, concluding that a decision to preserve the life of a patient in a state of permanent unconsciousness based on respect for life itself is morally no more sound than a decision to take that life.

For Constable, an individuals autonomy is the highest human good, overriding any other good, including what she calls the sanctity of life. Since a PVS patient presumably no longer has consciousness and therefore lacks autonomy, her argument runs, then there is no moral reason that such a patient should be kept alive.

In view of this conclusion, other considerations, such as the cost to the healthcare system (public, or any other kind) would seem poised to be deciding factors, she argues.

Constable goes as far as making the case that those who provide a PVS patient who may not have wanted to be kept alive with ANH have arguably committed a worse violation of autonomy by treating the patient than if we had not treated him against his wishes.

Bringing in surveys that indicate that a majority of people would not want to continue living in a permanent vegetative state, Constable argues that in continuing to provide ANH to PVS patients we are employing a treatment that most do not consider beneficial without consent. For Constable, ANH is simply a form of treatment that is concomitant with all the ethical ramifications that would normally accompany any other kind of treatment.

Constable even argues against keeping PVS patients alive through ANH under the pretext of a chance of recovery for the reason that the new life gained would be far less likely to resemble [the life that was] lost and would likely resemble some state of middle consciousness. She suggests that the life of a recovered PVS patient would be quite possibly, worse than non-existence.

Renowned bioethics critic Wesley J. Smith called Constables position paper a radical proposal that would set the stage for what he called a default for death policy [that] would establish the foundation for a veritable duty to die.

Smith warned that Constables arguments for killing PVS patients are not limited to the PVS.

Some bioethicists already claim that those with minimal consciousness have an interest in being made to die. And dont forget Futile Care Theory and health care rationing bearing down on us.

The Vaticans Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) stated in 2007 that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from PVS patients is immoral. Their statements were approved by Pope Benedict XVI.

The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

The CDF clarified that even if a competent physician judges with moral certainty that a PVS patient will never recover consciousness, nonetheless, a PVS patient is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

The late John Paul II had also taught that the administration of water and food [to a sick person], even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.

wagglebee, you know that if the proper drugs are administered, anyone can appear to be PVS. Pharmaceutical has a lot of involvement in these PVS nonsense. Drug 'em and then declare they are PVS. No, they are doped up! Nursing homes and hospices dope people up so they don't have to really tend to their needs in the proper way. Institutions turn patients into vegetables through chemistry.

When will people start asking to see the med sheet when the visit a nursing home patient? Those med sheets can be two full pages long. WHY? It's toxic and doping them up so they cannot speak. Then they have liver failure cuz the liver can't handle cross-meds with cross purposes and similar drugs presribed at the same time.

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was brain-dead following the wreck, Thorpes father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity. The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Having blogged last Thursday about Mark Dowds first programme on Radio 4 about euthanasia, Heart and Soul, I have now listened to his second one, broadcast last Saturday. In the first programme he interviewed Alison Davis, a Catholic convert, who suffers from spina bifida and who is a passionate opponent of euthanasia and assisted suicide. In this second episode he interviewed Edward Turner, a humanist, whose mother, Dr Anne Turner, made headlines in 2006 when, accompanied by Edward and his two sisters, she ended her life at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland.

She was suffering from a degenerative disease, similar to one her husband had died of a few years earlier. Edwards father had had a normal death and his son described his last year as a torture. Originally opposed to assisted suicide he told Dowd that as a result of that experience he thinks we hold on to other peoples lives longer than is good for them. At first he was opposed to his mothers wish and with his sisters did everything he could to make her life enjoyable and comfortable. But Dr Turner, a retired GP who had specialised in family planning, was adamant that she wanted to die before she became completely helpless and dependent on others.

Turner began to feel selfish in opposing his mothers wishes. When he returned to the UK after her death the local vicar, together with a humanist practitioner, arranged a humanist funeral for her in his parish church. According to Turner they both agreed that the funeral marked one of the high points of their professional careers.

Throughout the programme the interviewer, Mark Dowd, came across as tactfully as he had done in his earlier interview with Alison Davis. You could not guess where his own sympathies lay  except perhaps for one small clue. Alongside his conversation with Edward Turner he also interviewed at length a doctor from a Kenyan hospice as well as a doctor in South Africa. They both spoke of the importance of palliative care and how different the African culture is in its attitude towards the sick and the dying. Where the average life expectancy is 52 years, the aim of medicine is to reduce this mortality rather than to end life.

The Kenyan doctor explained to Dowd that religious faith is at the heart of this discussion. Suicide is very much disapproved of; Africans regard it as offending their ancestors; their families would be stigmatised by the community. Also, the culture means that illness and dying are not such a lonely place as in the Western world; there is much less emphasis on individual autonomy; you are part of a community rather than an isolated individual. Dowd gave as much airtime to this positive African perspective  not something, I would have thought, a covert euthanasia sympathiser would have done in a programme wanting to show the pro-choice point of view.

Dr Jonathan Romain, a Reform rabbi, was also briefly interviewed. He used to worry about the slippery slope argument but had watched too many people die in agony; he has been impressed by the safeguards formulated by Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions and now thinks that assisting suicide is a religious thing to do. He told Dowd he thought doctors should play God and use their skills to help people die with dignity.

Certain things came over clearly in these two programmes: broadly speaking it is a war (to the death) between a religious (largely Christian) outlook and a humanist/atheistic one. If you believe in life after death it gives you a different perspective than if you dont. You can also accept the possibility of helplessness and dependence because suffering has worth and purpose within the Christian faith. Living by rational principles as Turner does, means that seeming to prolong suffering when faced by terminal illness makes no sense.

I have just come across a book by Ann Farmer, about whom I have blogged recently, entitled The Five Wounds. For many years she has suffered from a physical illness and her book, published by Gracewing, is a wonderful testament to the Christian outlook on suffering (the Five Wounds are those of Christ on the Cross). In a postscript on suicide she writes, The only effective answer to human suffering is love; in committing suicide we would curtail our capacity to love and be loved; we would be inflicting a fatal wound on an already wounded spirit. The death as a solution approach is based on the assumption that the earthly life is the only life. As such, it offers an easy way out of suffering, a promise of true rest, eternal sleep but death without God would not mean eternal sleep; it would mean eternity without love.

I heartily recommend this book to Keir Starmer, Dr Romain and the humanist practitioner  indeed to anyone laid low by pain, physical or mental. It is a prescription for hope rather than despair  which is really what assisted suicide is all about.

20
posted on 04/29/2012 11:32:00 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

When a Canadian man named Hassan Rasouli suffered complications after brain surgery, his doctors wanted to pull the plug. But his Muslim family said no. It was against Hassans values, and moreover, they believed he showed signs of improvement. In any event, they wanted him to be able to continue to fight for life.

But that didnt end matters. The doctors claimed that continuing treatment was futile because he would never get better. Moreover, they announced they intended to stop all treatment except for comfort care  regardless of the familys desires or their patients personal values  an example of what is known in bioethics as Futile Care Theory or medical futility.

The case ended up in court. Justifying their desired imposition on the family, the doctors testified in a written affidavit: It is as certain as anything ever is in medicine that he will never recover any degree of consciousness, Wrong. Hassan later woke up and became reactive to the point that he can now give a thumbs up when asked how he is doing.

Despite this, the doctors are still conducting tests to determine whether they remain committed to stopping his treatment. Further, they have asked the Canadian Supreme Court to grant physicians the general legal right to refuse wanted life-extending treatment. If they prevail, it will mean that extending life will cease to be considered medically beneficial  even when that is what the patient and/or family wants.

Not so fast. Futile Care Theory has been pushed quietly by bioethicists in this country for years. Indeed, many, if not most, hospitals have promulgated some form of internal futile care protocol. Not only that, but many states  most notably Texas  legally grant hospitals the statutory right to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment.

This is how the Texas law, seen as a model by many futilitiarians, works: Under the Texas Health and Safety Code, if the physician disagrees with a patients decision to receive treatment, he or she can take it to the hospital bioethics committee. A hearing is convened at which all interested parties explain why they want or dont want treatment to continue.

If the committee decides to refuse treatment, it is determinative. Even if the family finds another doctor willing to provide the treatment, it cant be done in that hospital. At that point, the patient/family has a mere ten days to find another hospital willing to take the patient, after which, according to the statute, the physician and health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment.

In practical terms, thats a death sentence. The economics of medicine have changed from the old fee-for-service days. Today, extended care in ICUs is usually a money loser for hospitals, meaning that families find it almost impossible to find a facility willing to accept the transfer of expensive patients whose care has been declared to be futile. There are even reported cases of desperate families looking out of state for a facility willing to provide treatment for a loved one about to be pushed out of the lifeboat by a Texas hospital.

If the committee decides to refuse treatment, it is determinative. Even if the family finds another doctor willing to provide the treatment, it cant be done in that hospital. At that point, the patient/family has a mere ten days to find another hospital willing to take the patient, after which, according to the statute, the physician and health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment.

In practical terms, thats a death sentence. The economics of medicine have changed from the old fee-for-service days. Today, extended care in ICUs is usually a money loser for hospitals, meaning that families find it almost impossible to find a facility willing to accept the transfer of expensive patients whose care has been declared to be futile. There are even reported cases of desperate families looking out of state for a facility willing to provide treatment for a loved one about to be pushed out of the lifeboat by a Texas hospital.

Please understand, I am not saying that it would never be right to withdraw wanted treatment. Any one of us can conjure a scenario in which imposing increasingly painful and extreme interventions could cross the line into abuse. But these disputes should not be adjudicated behind closed doors in star chamber-like proceedings run by bioethicists who do not share the values of patients and their families, and who work in institutions with a financial stake in the outcomes. Rather, they belong in a court of law, with the right to press access, cross examination, a public record and appeal.

Moreover, if doctors want a patient to die sooner rather than later, they should bear the strong burden of proof in order to prevail. After all, the point of Futile Care Theory is to impose a form of the death penalty. When in doubt, every benefit of doubt belongs to wanted life.

22
posted on 05/20/2012 12:10:40 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Raymond Soileau just informed me that Fr. Norman Weslin died yesterday, 5/16 about 7:30pm. He had been suffering with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. He was living in Traverse City, Michigan. He was married before becoming a priest (was in the Army I think) and his wife is from Michigan so I'm sure he'll be buried with his wife. She died from a drunk driver hitting their car. He was arrested in the Notre Dame / Obama scandal which I think you may have seen it first hand. Raymond tells me some of the America's Party leaders knew him.

If you could, pass it on to the group.

23
posted on 05/20/2012 12:18:36 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

MIAMI, FLORIDA  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frosts company.

24
posted on 05/20/2012 12:23:43 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

In the defense of life, it is absolutely essential that we are committed to the abolition of all laws and judicial decisions that would permit even a single abortion. But we have to look further ahead to protect in an integral way the whole of human life from its biological beginnings until natural death. The same logic of dominion over life that leads to abortion serves as justification for euthanasia, assisted suicide, as well as contraception and artificial means of fertilization. If a person is capable of deciding on the life or death of the baby in the womb, that person could also make these same decisions over the life of a dying or disabled person under his or her legal care.

Nobody owns his life; no one has the right to euthanasia or assisted suicide. No one has the right to judge if the life of a human person is not worthy of being lived and should thus be eliminated.

Behind an apparently compassionate approach to the sufferings of a person that is dying, there is often a strong economic motivation to save society of the expenses of keeping alive a person whose condition has been deemed terminal. Life is the property of the Creator, so only He may decide the time of its beginning and the time of its conclusion; thus neither abortion or euthanasia, suicide, assisted suicide nor any form of artificial conception where human persons decide the time of the beginning or the end of life are permissible.

We have to protect the family which is the cradle of life and encourage generosity with life at a time of demographic winter. We should do everything possible to guarantee children their natural right of being born in a stable family, constituted by a man and woman, and their right to be conceived in natural fashion and not artificially.

The struggle to protect life is closely related to the acceptance or the rejection of the fullness of the Way, the Truth and Life that was brought to the world through the incarnation of the Eternal Word. John Paul II in Centesimus annus, demonstrates that a society cannot live without God in the emptiness of atheism. He finishes this analysis indicating how the Kingdom of God has to have a concrete effect in the life of society, enlightening it and penetrating it with the energies of grace. In light of these principles we can understand the gravity of Italian Law 194 of May 22, 1978 that legalized abortion and of the Law 40 of February 19, 2004 that legalized artificial fertilization. We cannot be in agreement with those that are of the view that Law 194 has to be applied in a correct way as a means of limiting the number of abortions. The first article of this law is totally ambiguous. It states that, The Republic . Protects human life from its beginning. But right away we can ask: who between the partisans of this law is ready to define the beginning of life as its biological beginning? We can try to limit the damages caused by this law applying article 73 of Evangelium vitae, but we can never accept the ideological foundations of the Italian abortion law.

The Italian law that legalizes artificial fertilization is the consequence of view of life in which men think everything he wants to do is licit. Some see this as a consequence of the Enlightenment, but really behind it we have the old demonic temptation that led our first parents to think they could be like God and become the Lords of everything created, instead of accepting that man is only a temporary administrator of a spiritual and material reality that has been entrusted to him during his life on this earth.

Behind this law there is a view in which children are not seen as a gift from God but as a right. This frame of mind of dominion over life is a grave evil in itself, but we also have to be keenly aware of its immediate consequences, which are the death of thousands of newly conceived babies, because many are rejected at implantation in the womb of the mother due to the unnatural means of implantation. There are sources that indicate that in this way more than eighty percent of the embryos produced artificially die before being born.

There is a connection that can never be taken away between the unitive and procreative meanings of the sexual act; this connection should not be broken by man. Artificial fertilization separates procreation from sexuality, and in certain way there is a relation between a contraceptive frame of mind and artificial fertility because we can say it is the reverse.

The defense of life is a fundamental part of building up the common good of society, as John Paul II taught us:

To be actively pro-life is to contribute to the renewal of society through the promotion of the common good. It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Then John Paul II adds with sober realism, There can be no true democracy without a recognition of every persons dignity and without respect for his rights.

A central element of the common good is the active protection of life as part of a commitment to establish a just and well-organized society under the Social Kingship of Christ, where Faith would be lived with a deep love of the truth, and as a consequence all the social and economic resources should be properly managed to assure a social and economic growth in real terms. A fundamental element in this struggle to establish the common good is generosity with life, because selfishness with life is the consequence of the lack of hope, which is in turn due to a lack faith. This lack of faith and hope leads directly or indirectly to abortion, euthanasia and all sorts of aggressions against the family. This happens also because without a hopeful and strong view of the future grounded in the faith it is difficult to make the permanent commitment which is the essence of marriage. A lived faith would encourage the generosity of families with life and a healthy socioeconomic policy would give them the necessary material security to carry forward their mission.

In the missionary presentation of the faith we should make a courageous and integral effort to communicate the teachings of the Church on life and family, demonstrating how all of them are bound together, and the abandonment of one of them leads to an attack on the others. These teachings are strongly opposed by a world dominated by relativism and hedonism, but without these it impossible to lead a happy and well integrated life. These obstacles should not discourage us, because nothing is impossible with God who always wishes our salvation.

26
posted on 06/03/2012 12:05:13 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

NEW YORK, May 31, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An employee at the flagship abortion clinic of Planned Parenthood in New York has been caught on tape telling a woman how to be sure of her unborn babys female sex in order to abort her in a second undercover video released Thursday morning.

The footage shows the undercover investigator, walking past a sign on the wall that reads WOMEN COUNT, meeting Planned Parenthood social worker Randi Coun at the Margaret Sanger Center International on Bleecker St.

Coun walks the investigator through obtaining a CVS test to determine gender as early as the first trimester, but assures the potential patient that it would be just as safe to obtain an abortion as late as 24 weeks.

Yeah, so, you know, withan abortion at any stage up to 24 weeks is considered a safe procedure. Um, the biggest difference is that after 16 weeks, the procedure becomes a 2-day procedure, rather than a procedure thats done just on one day, says the social worker. Its just theres more steps involved and its just a little more complicated.

Unborn children younger than 16 weeks are aborted by either dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E), in which the body is cut into pieces to ease removal from the womb. After 16 weeks a saline abortion can be used, in which a strong salt solution is injected into the amniotic sac. This kills the baby by burning its outer layer of skin and poisoning it when the solution is swallowed, a process that takes around an hour. Labor to expel the body normally sets in naturally within 24 hours, completing the abortion procedure.

Coun tells the investigator that Planned Parenthood would not question her sex-selection motivations. I can tell you that here at Planned Parenthood we believe that its not up to us to decide what is a good or a bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy, she said.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, who is a nurse, notes the CVS suggestion is an extreme one that puts the baby at risk. CVS tests have a risk of miscarriage of about 1 in 100, which Coun did not mention, and are typically done to test for genetic disorders, wrote Stanek.

The video was released two days after footage from a Texas clinic showed a counselor helping a potential client get an ultrasound to determine the babys gender for a sex-selective abortion, and warning her not to tell doctors of her intentions. A lot of doctors will place judgment because the brain is already developed, a lot. Pretty much everythings already developed.

Planned Parenthood issued a statement the same day announcing the counselor had been fired, but also confirmed that it is willing to perform sex-selection abortions. Meanwhile, the abortion chain is opposing a bill set for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday that would ban sex-selection abortions.

As the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition I have had the opportunity to read stories of despair and other stories of hope.

The story that I am writing about today is one of the greatest stories of hope. This is the story of Lilliana Dennis, a child who is living with Trisomy 18, a rare genetic condition that many doctors have labelled as "incompatible with life."

This is a story of a child who was not supposed to live. A child who has a condition that most doctors would refuse to provide treatment for and let to die, based on "futile care" theory. A story of a child, who in the Netherlands, may have been euthanized based on the guidelines of the Groningen Protocol, because she would be viewed as a "life unworthy of life."

This is a story of a child who is not only living but who is thriving and showing the world that the lives of children with Trisomy 18 are worthy of life, worthy of care and worthy of medical treatment.

Russell and Rhonda Dennis had just learned their newborn daughter, Lilliana, suffered from Trisomy 18. The genetic disorder would stymie her physical and mental development. Fewer than half of babies with the disorder survive their first week. Only about 8 percent live an entire year.

All you can do is take her home and love her while you can, doctors said.

That was about one year ago. The Dennis family never thought that Lilliana would celebrate her first birthday, but after open-heart surgery and regular therapy, she is thriving.

Her parents want to hold her up as an example that though the condition can be traumatic, its not an automatic death sentence.

Lilliana's first birthday

Shes proven she can live, she can learn, said Rhonda Dennis, her mother. She still might not live much longer, but weve come to terms with all of the things that the Lord has laid out. Hes in control, and bad things may come, but thats part of his plan.

In their southside Indianapolis home, the Dennis family have created a system to help protect Lilliana.

A monitor measures the amount of air she is getting in her lungs, warning the family if she has trouble breathing. Tanks of oxygen are on standby, as are medications to open her airways, in case the little girl struggles.

A gastric feeding tube was implanted in her stomach in April, since she has not developed the ability to eat by mouth. She gets much of her nutrition pumped into her body during the night, then feeds three times during the day to ensure she gets the proper nutrition.

The Dennises have four other children, and none of them have Trisomy 18. Even while Rhonda Dennis was pregnant with Lilliana, she experienced no complications or warnings that their new child would have so many problems.

Lilliana was born May 17, 2011, at Community South Hospital. She was three weeks early and weighed only 4 pounds, 7 ounces. Her small weight was the first sign that something may be wrong. More concrete signs, such as her clenched fingers that never seemed to straighten and feet that curled like rockers, made doctors order a genetic test.

The results showed she had Trisomy 18. The condition, also called Edwards syndrome, is similar to other genetic disorders such as Downs syndrome. When Lilliana was conceived, she had an extra chromosome, which caused her to develop a heart defect, poorly developed fingers and toes, and blockages that stunted her breathing.

In Lillianas case, the immediate danger was the stress on her respiratory system. The hole in her heart prevented oxygen-rich blood from properly circulating through the body. The struggle for oxygen puts undue stress on the rest of the body, and eventually they die. Little research has been done on Trisomy 18, due to the incredibly high death rate. Estimations are that almost 99 percent of babies with the condition are never even born. For those that are, odds are about 50 percent that they survive their first week.

Such a large percentage of the children born with the disease die quickly, and doctors have little opportunity to study the physical effects, said Dr. Sanjay Parikh, Lillianas cardiologist at Peyton Manning Childrens Hospital in Indianapolis.

From the start, the family turned to their faith to cope. Russell, president of Heritage Bible College in Franklin, and Rhonda Dennis turned to a specific Bible verse for guidance  Romans 15:13. The verse reads, Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

That message became their rallying cry.

When youre told these things up front, you just think its Gods plan. I really didnt think she would live. I thought that she would live a short time, and wed just show everyone we still trusted God, Rhonda Dennis said.

They also started researching the problem on their own. Online support groups, as well as national organizations such as the Trisomy 18 Foundation, helped fill in the blanks beyond what their doctors had told them.

The information was frightening, as it revealed how deadly the condition can be. But it also offered hope. They read about children who were attending school and had learned to walk. One woman lived to be 41 and graduated from college.

The doctors tell you this condition is incompatible with life, that its fatal, and that all of these things will more than likely go wrong, Rhonda Dennis said. But then you meet these people and see these kids doing stuff, interacting, walking and talking.

Initially, Lillianas doctors told them it was too late for surgery and there was nothing they could do. But the Dennises wanted a second opinion. Working with friends in Ohio, the little girls heart scans and images were hand delivered to a doctor based in Toledo, Ohio, who specialized in Trisomy 18 cases.

The family also went to see Parikh. He examined her heart images and immediately said that he could do the surgery.

But he had a catch. Parikh couldnt guarantee that he could assemble a surgical team that would agree to do it. Because the life expectancy of any baby with Trisomy 18 is so short, and surgery doesnt guarantee a greatly extended life, many health officials feel that any surgery or procedure is cruel.

The prejudice is such that, these babies dont live long enough, so why put them through the pain and stress of surgery if it isnt going to make that great of a difference, Russell Dennis said.

The Dennises also had to plead their case in front of the hospitals ethics board, which must give the approval on risky or controversial procedures. The board was split, and unanimous approval was needed to do the surgery. One of the main opponents of doing it asked the family how this operation would affect Lillianas quality of life.

My thinking was, if she gets the surgery, she lives. If she doesnt, she dies. It was that simple, Russell Dennis said.

But it was Rhonda Dennis who spoke. She looked at the physician and simply asked, What if it was your daughter? After deliberating behind closed doors, the committee emerged and gave their approval for the surgery.

Other parents who had gone through Trisomy 18, as well as their own research, told the Dennis family they had a six-week window to repair the hole in her ventricle which would relieve the stress.

Parikh and his team gathered on Oct. 13 to perform the open-heart surgery, a first for a baby with Trisomy 18. The operation was long, complicated by Lillianas small size and her breathing problems. But by the next day, she was stable and recovering in the hospital.

After 17 days of recovery, Lilliana came home with her parents. The change in her health since that time has been noticeable.

Though they take precautions with an oxygen monitor and medications, Lillianas breathing has become stronger and more regular. The next challenge is teaching Lillianas body to work the way a small childs should. Rhonda Dennis is working with her to learn to feed by mouth. She has an oral stimulator that allows her to coat Lillianas gums and inner cheeks with baby food, most of which the girl spits up.

Lilliana also sees a physical therapist six times each month. The sessions are designed to help with basic muscle tone, such as lifting her arms and legs, and moving her head. She still cant lift her head up much when laying on her stomach, but has started actively moving her lower body around.

She has great hip action. She can scoot all over the floor, Rhonda Dennis said.

To celebrate Lillianas first birthday, the Dennises had a celebration open house. She received her own birthday cake, and gifts from family and friends. After 12 months of fear and concern for their daughter, Russell and Rhonda Dennis are grateful to focus on the positive.

They understand that Lilliana will likely struggle for the rest of her life, and theyve accepted that. Their goal now is to give their daughter the best life she can have while shes alive, and to reach out to other parents to help them with the myriad decisions that come with Trisomy 18.

If the parents dont know what to push for and what to demand, a lot of times they wont get it, Rhonda Dennis said. There are statistics that show that many of these children dont live long. But you dont know that for sure.

"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."

28
posted on 06/03/2012 12:18:02 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

“Meanwhile, the abortion chain is opposing a bill set for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday that would ban sex-selection abortions.”

I intend to write an editor’s letter and name NAMES of the rep who for FOR the same-sex ban, and the rep. who voted AGAINST the ban. Hope others will do the same and name NAMES in their home-town newspaper.

In two short minutes, you can find out even more things than youve heard before about whats wrong with ObamaCare. (And this doesnt even cover it all, folks.) We knew it was bad  we knew it was really bad  but did we know it was this bad? I mean, seriously, $100-a-day fines for each employee? If this isnt an extreme violation of personal, constitutional, and conscience rights, I dont know what is.

Of course, we shouldnt be surprised at all the things that can hide in a nearly 1,000 page law, with even more pages of regulations implementing that law. In 2011, John Vinci of NetRight Daily wrote (footnotes omitted):

If you thought that Obamacare was long, it is only a fraction of the length of the regulations.

Obamacare contains over 700 directives for HHS and other agencies to implement Obamacare.

We went through and counted all of the Obamacare regulation documents published so far. We found that the number of pages in regulations are already 114 percent as long as the number of pages in the Obamacare statutes! The statutes contain 961 pages compared to 1,093 pages of regulations What is more telling is the word count comparison. The Obamacare statutes together contain 425,116 words. Compare that to 1,147,271 words published so far in Obamacare regulation documents. The regulations are 270 percent as long as the statute itself.

Alliance Defense Fund, the organization who created the video at the beginning of this article, has also designed an easily sharable collection of facts about ObamaCare. You can share the fact sheet with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, and more. ADF has done a well-researched job of explaining just what ObamaCare means to everyday Americans. And they reveal multiple hidden facts that must be brought to light.

For example:

Employees who dont purchase ObamaCare will be fined up to 2.5% of their salary.

Some ObamaCare plans can take $ straight out of your paycheck and put it in an abortion-on-demand fund.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports that there are approximately 154,000,000 people in the U.S. labor force. If only half of plans include the Abortion Premium, at only $1 per month, the yearly income into this fund would be $924,000,000.

On average, an abortion costs $450. At the above rate, this fund could completely subsidize 2 million abortions per year. Currently, there are 1.2 million abortions per year in the U.S.

The employee will discover that their plan contains an abortion premium either by seeking it out in the fine print once they have enrolled, or noticing the separate surcharge taken from their paycheck.

ADF provides sources for the claims made in its fact sheet. The facts are chilling, but they must be studied, understood, and broadcasted by every American. Clearly, President Obama has used ObamaCare as an avenue to give a committed Planned Parenthood associate and abortion advocate  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius  free rein to impose conscience violations and abortion funding on millions of Americans who are pro-life or who simply do not desire to fund someone elses abortion.

As ADF correctly states, [f]orced purchase is usually called coercion rather than commerce.

Right-to-die activists hope more countries will allow assisted suicide or euthanasia in coming years as the world population ages, but opponents are determined to stop them, a dispute that flared ahead of competing conferences in Switzerland.

"We have seen over the last 20 years a general migration of positivity towards this being a just cause," Ted Goodwin, the American president of the World Federation of Right-to-Die Societies, told a news conference in Zürich on Tuesday.

Assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since 1942, if performed by a non-physician who has no direct interest in the death. Euthanasia, or "mercy killing", is legal only in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the U.S. state of Oregon.

Goodwin said the election of Socialist François Hollande as French president could help the euthanasia cause in Europe. Hollande has said he favors euthanasia under strict conditions.

"If France falls into line, I believe Germany will also adopt it. That is a game changer in Europe," he said, noting support for reform was also gaining traction in Australia and Massachusetts. "Things are happening slowly but surely."

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is organizing an alternative conference on Friday to coincide with the public part of the Right-to-Die gathering in Zurich.

"Together with the increasing cost pressure in the health sector and the increasing loneliness of older people, organized assistance for suicide is a breeding ground which promotes suicide," Roland Graf, a priest who is vice-president for Human Life International Switzerland, told a separate news conference.

"The pressure is growing on people who can no longer give to society what is expected of them. They increasingly feel themselves as a burden for society and their relatives."

What should be done with elderly Americans when they become very seriously ill? Should we try to save their lives or should we just let them die? Unfortunately, there is a growing consensus among the "intellectual elite" that most elderly people are not going to have a high enough "quality of life" to justify the expense of costly life saving procedures. This philosophy is now being promoted very heavily through mainstream news outlets, in our television shows and in big Hollywood movies. The elite are attempting to convince us that killing off our sick grandparents is cool and trendy. We are being told that "pulling the plug" on grandma and grandpa is compassionate (because it will end their suffering), that it is good for the environment and that it is even good for the economy. We are being told that denying life saving treatments to old people will dramatically reduce health care costs and make the system better for all of us. We are being told that it is not "efficient" for health insurance companies to shell out $100,000 for an operation that may extend the life of an elderly person by 6 months. But the truth is that all of this is part of a larger agenda that the elite are attempting to advance. As I have written about previously, the elite love death, and they truly believe that reducing the population is good for society and good for the planet. Sadly, population control propaganda has reached a fever pitch in recent months.

Time Magazine has just come out with a very shocking cover story entitled "How To Die". The article goes on and on about how wonderful and compassionate it is to remove life saving treatment from sick relatives.

A recent article by Mike Adams summarized the message of this disgusting article....

Inside, the magazine promotes a cost-saving death agenda that encourages readers to literally pull the feeding tubes from their dying elderly parents, causing them to dehydrate and die. This is explained as a new cost-saving measure that drastically reduces return hospital visits by the elderly yeah, because dead people dont return to the hospital, of course.

Many of you also probably remember the Newsweek cover story from a couple years ago that was entitled "The Case for Killing Granny".

Underneath that shocking title was the following phrase: Curbing excessive end-of-life care is good for America.

According to the author of that article, spending less money on the elderly is the key to successful health care reform....

The idea that we might ration health care to seniors (or anyone else) is political anathema. Politicians do not dare breathe the R word, lest they be accusedhowever wronglyof trying to pull the plug on Grandma. But the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate. Everyone sees it but no one wants to talk about it. At a more basic level, Americans are afraid not just of dying, but of talking and thinking about death. Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable.

Sadly, articles like that one are becoming quite frequent in mainstream media sources.

Just a few days ago, a Bloomberg article entitled "How 'Death Panels' Can Prolong Life" declared that we must "deny treatment to people who want it" in order to hold down costs....

In short, all the Republican talk during the health-care- reform debate about death panels was melodramatic and unfair, but not ridiculous. One way or another, holding down health-care costs will require policies that deny treatment to people who want it. And want it because it will extend their lives.

This goes on already, all the time. Health insurance companies have been known to deny payment for treatments deemed unnecessary. Age limits for organ transplants are another example. All policies that involve denying care because of quality of life considerations are, in effect, death panels. But no society can afford to give every citizen every possible therapy. Medicare is going broke trying.

So who are we supposed to deny treatment to?

The elderly of course.

According to that Bloomberg article, we are supposed to kill off our sick grandparents because the "quality of life" they would be expected to have if they recover would not be enough to warrant spending so much to save them....

A $200,000 operation can add a year or two to the life of an octogenarian, or it can save decades of life for younger people. In a country like the U.S., with an average life expectancy of 78.5, it takes 10 septuagenarians who get an extra five years from the health-care system to balance a single 30- year-old who gets 50 extra years. Or save the life of a newborn, who then enjoys a normal life span and dies at 78.5, and you have the same impact on national life expectancy as 16 operations on septuagenarians. The average national life expectancy can increase even as the cost goes down.

This is the kind of thinking that starts happening in a society that dramatically devalues life.

If human life has little value, then it is easy to start justifying things that would have once been unthinkable.

For example, one surgeon is now suggesting that we should start harvesting organs from patients before they die....

Dr. Paul Morrissey, an associate professor of surgery at Brown University's Alpert Medical School, wrote in The American Journal of Bioethics that the protocol known as donation after cardiac death -- meaning death as a result of irreversible damage to the cardiovascular system -- has increased the number of organs available for transplant, but has a number of limitations, including the need to wait until the heart stops.

Because of the waiting time, Morrissey said that about one-third of potential donors end up not being able to donate, and many organs turn out to not be viable as a result.

Instead, he argues in favor of procuring kidneys from patients with severe irreversible brain injury whose families consent to kidney removal before their cardiac and respiratory systems stop functioning.

Do you want your organs harvested before you are dead?

Sadly, those that often do need organ transplants the most these days are often denied for "quality of life" issues as well.

For example, at one U.S. hospital a 3-year-old girl named Amelia was denied a kidney transplant that she desperately needed simply because she is considered to be "mentally retarded".

These are the kinds of decisions that are being made by doctors and by health insurance companies all over America every day.

And did you know that life-ending drugs are going to be 100% free under Obamacare?

I did not know this until I read a Christian Post article the other day....

A Christian-based legal defense alliance is warning Americans who already believe that President Barack Obama's health care plan is a bad idea that the "ObamaCare mandate is worse than you think."

"Everyone likes a good surprise, but no one likes a bad surprise. So, you're really not going to like the surprises buried in the 2,700 pages of this document," says the narrator of a short video produced by the Alliance Defense Fund.

"Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. One hundred percent free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn't it be the other way around?"

Apparently they want to make it as easy to off yourself and your relatives as possible.

So where is all of this headed?

Are we eventually going to become like the Netherlands?

In the Netherlands, mobile euthanasia teams are now going door to door to help elderly patients end their lives in the comfort of their own homes.

Is that what we want?

Do we want government agents going door to door to help people die?

As I have written about previously, the elite believe that the world is massively overpopulated and they believe that all of us are ruining their planet.

So they love euthanasia, abortion and pretty much anything else that will result in more people ending up dead.

33
posted on 06/17/2012 10:48:26 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

What would it be like to starve to death in silence? Can you imagine dying of thirst, but not being able to ask for a glass of water? Student and aspiring filmmaker Adam Hardy, 22, puts his viewers in the shoes of a woman in just that situation.

Based on the true story of Terri Schiavo and others like her, Hungry reminds us of the discrimination that people with disabilities face and the sanctity of all human life. Since Live Action is a youth-led movement dedicated to building a culture of life, we love sharing what other young people are doing to communicate life-affirming messages through media. Check out Adams short film:

People are disposable things without feelings or souls. When will the masses wake up? It will be too late when their lethal injection arrives. They won’t do the starving dehydration thing once lethal injections become the law of the land - in the name of saving the earth (for the elites.)

Brainwashing of the type that L. Ron Hubbard could only dream about. In Florida, I make it a point not to visit hospitals or nursing homes or any place health care is not going on. Florida has Death Panels for a long time now and between medical mistakes and the death cultists here, it's better to go holistic in Florida.

I left out all the organ harvesting and transplant hospitals here. They’d rather organ harvest than save the patient. Example: my friend v. Dr. Frist’s chain HCA. My friend died but they didn’t any parts. Beware of HCA. I believe the H stands for harvesting.

ROME, June 25, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When Chiara Corbella learned she was pregnant with her third child, it was a great joy that ended in bittersweet tragedy for the young Italian mother, who died this month after postponing cancer treatment to save her cherished baby.

n a story that echoes that of Roman Catholic saint Gianna Molla, Chiara and her husband Enrico Petrillo embarked on a remarkable journey of faith in 2010 when they learned that they were pregnant with Francisco - and that Chiara had an aggressive form of cancer, reports the Catholic News Agency.

The news was especially poignant for the couple since both of Franciscos elder siblings, Maria and David, had been lost shortly after birth. In fact, Chiara and Enrico had become popular pro-life speakers for their stories of their few treasured moments with each of their first two children before their brief lives came to an end.

This time, doctors said Francisco was healthy and developing normally. So when Chiara was advised to begin treatment immediately for her cancer, she declined, waiting for Francisco to be born in May of last year. The cancer progressed over the following year, depriving Chiara of sight in one eye before she finally succumbed on June 13, 2012.

I am going to heaven to take care of Maria and David, you stay here with Dad. I will pray for you, Chiara wrote to baby Francisco in a letter, one week before her death.

Chiaras funeral Mass was celebrated by the Vicar General of Rome, Cardinal Agostino Vallini, who called Chiara the second Gianna Beretta.

Saint Gianna Molla was an Italian pediatrician who died in 1962 from complications caused by a fibroma on her uterus, after she refused both an abortion and a hysterectomy because she was pregnant with her fourth child.

Although a tragedy to outside observers - and certainly also for Enrico, to whom Chiara was happily married  the couples last conversations reveal, in the young husbands words, a story of love on the cross that seemed to conquer even death.

The truth is that this cross  if you embrace it with Christ  ceases to be as ugly as it looks. If you trust in him, you discover that this fire, this cross, does not burn, and that peace can be found in suffering and joy in death, said Enrico, according to CNA. I spent a lot of time this year reflecting on this phrase from the Gospel that says the Lord gives a cross that is sweet and a burden that is light.

When I would look at Chiara when she was about to die, I obviously became very upset. But I mustered the courage and a few hours before  it was about eight in the morning, Chiara died at noon  I asked her.

I said: But Chiara, my love, is this cross really sweet, like the Lord says? She looked at me and she smiled, and in a soft voice she said, Yes, Enrico, it is very sweet.

In this sense, the entire family didnt see Chiara die peacefully, but happily, which is totally different.

Enrico said he would tell his son Francisco when he was older that the most important thing in life is to let yourself be loved in order to love and die happy, and that this is what his mother, Chiara, did.

She allowed herself to be loved, and in a certain sense, I think she loved everyone in this way, he said. I feel her more alive than ever. To be able to see her die happy was to me a challenge to death.

Abortion clinics across the nation have increasingly been offering discounts for their services on Sundays, partly to counter afternoon church protests by believers opposed to such clinics and the practice of abortion.

Examples of such offers include the Orlando Women's Center abortion clinic in Florida, which advertises discounted abortions with the offer: "LIMITED TIME SPECIAL! PRINT THIS PAGE AND BRING IT IN FOR $50 SAVINGS. ONLY ON SUNDAYS!"

The website Fund Abortion Now provides financial support to women seeking to have abortions and collects funds to aid them with their decision across all 50 states.

"The 100+ local abortion funds in our organization help women pay for abortions they can't otherwise afford," the website states.

Michael Martelli, Executive Director of Maryland Coalition for Life, an anti-abortion group seeking to protect the sanctity of human life, shared with The Christian Post that the practice of collecting money to fund abortions or offering discounted abortions is not uncommon, and that special Sunday discounts are not coincidental -- as it is the day many Christians can be found in houses of worship.

"I don't think there is any coincidence...abortion facilities are facing increasing presence from Christians praying during business hours, and are having to change up their business hours to try to avoid the attention. Carhart does this now in Germantown, he comes in Sunday afternoons, but the churches are coming together to increase the presence EVERY Sunday from 3-5, so people are there," Martelli shared.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal says that euthanasia is "therapeutic homicide" which requires extremely robust arguments to justify it. An editorial in its latest issue was commenting on recommendations made by the Dying with Dignity commission of the Quebec National Assembly. The commission released a report after two years of study. The authors wrote:

"Proponents of dying with medical assistance must argue that a patients rights invoke a corresponding medical duty to provide the means if a patient cannot, and it follows that this should be done in a safe and expert way. Hence, the act of assisting death would need to move from the context of being criminal to being part of the continuum of end-of-life care."

"Removing the legal barrier to ending anothers life may ensure the self-dignity of those who wish to die, but may distress and remove the self-dignity of more people who wish to live."

The editorial also called for more dialogue and action from federal legislators. Legislative change should not come about as a result of a single decision from one province -- the recent British Columbia judgement which declared bans on assisted dying unconstitutional. They continued:

"The ethics of euthanasia are a familiar debate in Canada; one that may have been theoretical until recently, because of the tacit assumption that doctors do not kill people. In Quebec, the debate is moving from theory toward practice. Which way will legislation go? Will the rest of Canada follow? Those who care about the answers to these questions must speak up now, and with conviction." ~ Canadian Medical Association Journal, Jun 25

"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."

42
posted on 07/01/2012 11:29:10 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood, the president told nearly 1,000 donors at the Oregon Convention Center. I think that is a bad idea. Ive got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices. Were not going backwards; were going forwards.

The reference echoes a comment he made in 2008 on the campaign trail. Ive got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old, he said. If they make a mistake, I dont want them punished with a baby.

In yesterdays remarks, the president applied the same phrase he used of Planned Parenthood, the nations leading abortion provider, to his health care law. The Supreme Court has spoken. We are now implementing it, he said. Thirty million people will have health insurance that didnt have it before. Women will have control of their health care choices. The comment drew a boisterous ovation.

President Obama later drew another contrast with Romney, saying, I believe in bottom-up economics. He pledged to continue investing in clean energy and making sure that solar panels and wind turbines are built here in the United States of America.

At several points he punctuated the speech, which highlighted his support of a number of left-of-center positions, with the phrase, Were not going backwards; were going forwards.

The 37-minute speech came before two additional fundraisers: A $5,000-a-plate fundraiser with 200 donors and a $38,500-a-plate fundraiser with 20 donors.

The speech contained a notable reference, as the president cited the Declaration of Independences guarantee that we were endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator, life and liberty and this pursuit of happiness. He has a history of omitting the words by our Creator in past speeches.

Obamas comments on abortion begin at 31:38.

Video at above link.

45
posted on 07/29/2012 11:53:51 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

New documents a local CBS television station obtained in the case of a young African-American woman killed in a fatal botched legal abortion show Planned Parenthood waited over five hours before sending the woman to a local hospital for emergency care.

Steve Miller of the CBS news affiliate WBBM has released a new report showing documents released in the botched abortion death of Tonya Reaves that alarmingly shows Planned Parenthood delayed summoning emergency care for the dying woman for five and a half hours after the abortion failed.

At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, Reaves received a second-trimester dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion at Planned Parenthood, located at 18 S. Michigan Ave. in Chicago. Following the abortion, Reaves began bleeding heavily and it continued at Planned Parenthood for five and a half hours before a Fire Department ambulance finally took her to Northwestern Memorial Hospital at 4:30 p.m., according to Miller.

Then, once the young woman arrived at the hospital, the reports make it appear emergency personnel had to start from scratch to figure out the extent of Reaves injuries.

Then at 5:30 p.m., doctors performed an ultrasound, and another dilation and evacuation procedure  basically, another abortion  this time at Northwestern, Miller reports. But after that, there were then more problems, and pain. That warranted a new ultrasound, and a perforation was discovered. At 10:12 p.m., Reaves was taken back to surgery  and an uncontrollable bleed was discovered, documents say.

Responding to the report, Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation, said, It is clear that Planned Parenthood botched the procedure that resulted in uncontrolled bleeding then failed to treat the hemorrhage while Reaves was at their clinic, allowing her to bleed for over five hours before finally calling for help.

There can be no doubt that this delay contributed to her death, Newman argues. The injury and the untreated hemorrhage happened at Planned Parenthood and they are solely responsible for it.

Newman, in a press statement to LifeNews, quotes Dr. James C. Anderson, M.D., a 30-year veteran emergency room doctor who said abortion clinics never informed him about their patients conditions.

I have always had to evaluate the situation, come to my own conclusions, and initiate what I thought was appropriate treatment. This definitely created some time delays that were not in the patients best interest, stated Dr. Anderson. These delays can have life-threatening implications when dealing with hemorrhage or infection.

Newman says the lack of information proved fatal for Tonya Reaves.

Planned Parenthood butchered Tonya Reaves, delayed her access to emergency care, then left the emergency room doctors to figure out what happened to her. By the time they discovered the true extent of her injuries, it was too late to save her life, said Newman. Planned Parenthood is trying to minimize their responsibility for Reaves completely avoidable death that appears to have resulted from a combination of their negligence, delay  possibly for the purpose of cover-up  and lack of communication with emergency providers. That abortion clinic is dangerous and should be closed. The abortionist should not be allowed to continue to inflict harm on women and should have his medical license revoked.

Newman concluded: We again call on President Obama to stop protecting Planned Parenthood and halt all Federal funding to the abortion giant in order to prevent other women from suffering Tonya Reaves fate.

Reaves family has obtained an attorney who is looking into a potential civil lawsuit against Planned Parenthood on the familys behalf.

46
posted on 07/29/2012 11:58:03 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

July 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com)  The courts should not interfere with doctors who want to dehydrate to death incapacitated patients who are a drain on scarce financial resources, according to an editorial in this weeks edition of the prestigious British Medical Journal.

Raanan Gillon, emeritus professor of medical ethics and former chairman of the Institute of Medical Ethics governing body, wrote that a ruling last year by the High Court against dehydrating an incapacitated patient to death was profoundly disturbing because it took the life and death decision-making power out of the hands of doctors and required that the principle of the sanctity of life take precedence over other considerations.

The judgment, he said, threaten[s] to skew the delivery of severely resource-limited healthcare services towards providing non-beneficial or minimally beneficial life prolonging treatments including artificial nutrition and hydration to thousands of severely demented patients whose families and friends believe they would not have wanted such treatment.

He complained that the ruling required that, under the stringent Mental Capacity Act, in order to remove life prolonging treatment like a feeding and hydration tube, the patient himself must have left a legally binding advance decision in writing, and that previous casual or unrecorded statements to relatives were not sufficient grounds.

The editorial, titled, Sanctity of life law has gone too far, said that unless it is overturned, the court ruling will gradually and detrimentally distort healthcare provision, healthcare values, and common sense.

Its logical implication, Gillon wrote, is that doctors should no longer decide, in consultation with those who know their incapacitated patients, whether life prolonging treatment including artificial nutrition and hydration will be in their patients best interests.

Furthermore, he said, the ruling logically means that those patients in a higher than minimal state of consciousness must be similarly protected.

The court ruling in question was that in the M Case, in which the family of a 52-year-old woman who was found to be in a minimally conscious state and who was otherwise clinically stable, were petitioning the court to have her feeding and hydration tube removed. The Court of Protection ruled that all patients in such a state must be referred individually to the Court of Protection if life prolonging treatment by artificial nutrition and hydration is to be withheld or withdrawn.

Mr. Justice Baker said in the September 2011 decision, The factor which does carry substantial weight, in my judgment, is the preservation of life. Although not an absolute rule, the law regards the preservation of life as a fundamental principle.

Justice Baker wrote that the courts should not attach significant weight to the patients previous statements unless they had been expressed in a way that could stand up to legal scrutiny. As in the case of Terri Schiavo in the U.S., Ms family had argued that her alleged previous statements indicated that she would not want to be dependent on such care.

Baker responded to this by ruling, [Given] the importance of the sanctity of life, and the fatal consequences of withdrawing treatment, and the absence of an advance decision that complied with the requirements previously specified by the common law and now under statute, it would in my judgment be wrong to attach significant weight to those statements made prior to her collapse.

Anthony Ozimic, communications manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that the ideology being espoused by Gillon and the British Medical Journal is indistinguishable from the materialist utilitarian ethic that led to the elimination of the unfit by eugenicists in the early 20th century, including in pre-World War II Germany.

What is particularly disturbing about Professor Gillons opinions is that he is judging certain disabled people as having lives unworthy of life, balancing those lives against the needs of other patients and seeking to justify killing the disabled on the grounds of rationing, Ozimic told LifeSiteNews.com.

Such a utilitarian calculus is in substance no difference to the calculus made during World War II by the German authorities: that the disabled should die so that wounded soldiers could live. In any case, assisted food and fluids are basic nursing care, not futile medical treatments.

As shocking as such pronouncements are to the general public, the idea that disabled patients should be euthanized, either directly or by the removal of food and hydration, is actually a mainstream of thought among many of the western worlds medical ethicists. Gillon himself is a major voice in the field as a former editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics and the author of the 1985 book Philosophical Medical Ethics.

Classical medical ethics, that held as paramount the principle Do no harm, has in large part been set aside in favor of the new utilitarian-based Bioethics, a formal or normative branch of ethical philosophy that seeks the greatest good for the greatest number according to the principles of justice, beneficence and autonomy.

47
posted on 07/29/2012 12:02:15 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

If you want to see what direction health care is going, just read the July 12 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM).

Of course, reading a medical journal isnt on most peoples to do lists. Even medical professionals who do read journal articles rarely do so to gain insight into the latest shifts in the cultural or political winds.

Thats a mistake. These days, radical trial balloons are often launched from such venerable publications  which is especially disturbing because the imprimatur of the medical intelligentsia provides respectability to ideas that otherwise would be dismissed out of hand. The mere fact that an idea appears in what The New York Timesdescribes as perhaps the most influential medical publication in the world, places that concept firmly within the realm of respectable debate.

Which brings us back to the NEJM.

On its pages, the NEJM has long featured articles favoring euthanasia and assisted suicide as well as health care rationing. Indeed, two of its former editors, Dr. Arnold Relman and Dr. Marcia Angell, are vocal advocates of eliminating the private health system and replacing it with a single-payer, government-controlled health system. And both are among the 14 subscribing petitioners on a doctor-prescribed suicide initiative that will appear on the November 2012 ballot in Massachusetts.

Angell is so enamored with the concept of assisted suicide that, in a 2004 article, she decried the fact that too few people were availing themselves of Oregons doctor-prescribed suicide law. She expressed concern that the law was too restrictive.

Now, the NEJMhas given a platform for Dr. Lisa Lehmann, director of the Center for Bioethics at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston, and researcher Julian Prokopetz to lay out a proposal for facilitating what they call assisted dying. In their article, Redefining Physicians Role in Assisted Dying, the authors address what they see as a real problem: There arent enough doctors willing to participate in assisted suicide.

As the authors state, Many medical professionals are uncomfortable with the idea of physicians playing an active role in ending patients lives. Furthermore, they explain that the American Medical Association and various state medical groups oppose legalization.

It should be noted that when Washington and Oregon changed their laws to permit assisted suicide, they did not make all assisted suicide legal. For example, ones mechanic, plumber, attorney, professor, or spouse is not given the authority to assist suicide. Essentially, what was made legal in those states  and what is funded by state and private insurance  is one type of assisted suicide: doctor-prescribed suicide.

It is the necessity of a doctor who will prescribe the deadly dose which presents a stumbling block that Lehmann and Prokopetz seek to address. As they explain, We believe there is a compelling case for legalizing assisted dying, but assisted dying need not be physician-assisted.

And how do they suggest that this hurdle between diagnosis and prescription be overcome?

Simple.

Take the doctor out of doctor-prescribed suicide by setting up a government-facilitated process that will make it easier for patients to cross the River Styx. As they explain:

We envision the development of a central state or federal mechanism to confirm the authenticity and eligibility of patients requests, dispense medication, and monitor demand and use. Such a mechanism would obviate physician involvement beyond usual care.

They see this as a way of overcoming the reluctance of most doctors to assist in suicide, while they remain oblivious (or indifferent) to protecting the lives of vulnerable patients.

As they accurately explain, under Oregons and Washingtons laws, the patients doctor confirms the prognosis, explains alternatives for treatment and care to the patient, and then writes the lethal suicide prescription. In their plan, the doctor would bow out of the process before writing the prescription: Prognosis and treatment options are part of standard clinical discussions, so if a physician certifies that information in writing, patients could conceivable go to an independent authority to obtain the prescription. At that point, the patient could simply go to a suicide-prescribing clinic. Patients could also provide an independent authority with their medical record as proof of their prognosis.

Could this work?

Yes, without question.

Many states already permit nurse-practitioners to prescribe barbiturates (the same drugs prescribed in intentionally lethal amounts for suicide in Washington and Oregon). Removing the requirement that the prescription for suicide be doctor-prescribed would certainly be possible.

While there might be initial objections to leaving the doctor out a crucial step in the process, it should be noted that state-issued annual reports in both Washington and Oregon indicate that reported assisted-suicide cases do not involve the close doctor-patient relationship that advocates of the practice promised would occur.

For example, in Oregon, the length of time for the doctor-patient relationship before writing the lethal prescription has been under one week in some reported cases. Even in cases where the patient has been in the care of the prescribing doctor, once the prescription is written, the doctor may have no further contact with the patient. Prescribing doctors have been present at the time of the patients death from the prescribed overdose in fewer than seven percent of reported cases.

Details of how the newly proposed system would work were revealed by Dr. Lehmann in an interview with ABC News. She explained that doctors would only be responsible for making the diagnosis of a terminal illness. Then, the patient should be able to pick up the lethal drugs from a government-authorized, all-purpose location where a government bureaucrat would determine the patients eligibility for a death prescription.

In addition to soothing the sensibilities  and deadening the consciences  of doctors, moving physicians into the background would have another effect. It would increase the number of assisted suicides.

Lets consider this for a moment. Do we really think that a government that is constantly looking for ways to contain health care costs will be likely to deny death eligibility? Do we think that government death-control officials will do the right thing  or the cheap thing?

Take this proposal, coupled with government-run health care, and you have death panels on steroids.

Like we said, if you want to see what direction things are going in health care, just read the professional journals.

"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."

48
posted on 07/29/2012 12:07:38 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

That President Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois legislature to not support a bill to provide medical care for newborns who survived failed late-term abortions is one of the key reasons pro-life voters will never support him.

Now, Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack has uncovered new audio of Obama, as a state legislator in Illinois in 2003, defending his position. Obama essentially argues that there is no need for the law because he trusts abortion practitioners to provide medical care for the baby they unsuccessfully tried to kill in an abortion.

The transcript of the video McCormack unearthed follows:

OBAMA: I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child  however way you want to describe it  is now outside the mothers womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but theres, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, theyre not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think, as  as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, lets say for the purposes of the mothers health, is being  that  that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, if  if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I  I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a  an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if thats the case  and and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue  thats fine, but I think its important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that theyre looked after. Thank you, Mr. President.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama was so supportive of late-term abortions, he resisted efforts to protect unborn children born alive after failed abortion procedures.

When Obama opposed a bill to stop infanticide as a member of the Illinois legislature, he said he did so because it reportedly contained language that would have contravened the Roe v. Wade decision. However, documents uncovered during the 2008 election show Obama has misrepresented his position.

Obama, as a member of the Illinois Senate, opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would make sure babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.

It also protected babies who were aborted through a purposeful premature birth and left to die afterwards.

On the federal level, pro-abortion groups withdrew their opposition to the bill after a section was added making sure it did not affect the status of legal abortions in the United States. Ultimately, the bill was approved on a unanimous voice vote with even leading pro-abortion lawmakers like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing it.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent criticized him for supporting infanticide by voting against the Illinois version of the bill. Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state bill because it lacked the neutrality clause found in the federal version.

As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal.

During Obamas 2008 run for President, he repeated those claims.

Documents obtained by the National Right to Life Committee showed Obamas claim that he would have voted for the bill had it been Roe-neutral is a false argument.

According to the documents from the Illinois legislature, Obama, as the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting concerning neutrality language that was an exact duplicate of the clause in the federal bill.

During the March 2003 committee, Obama voted in support of adding the neutrality clause, but then led his colleagues on the panel in voting down the anti-infanticide bill on a 6-4 vote.

Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion, NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com at the time.

Johnson said Obama did so even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion.

Obamas legislative actions in 2003  denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions  were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress, Johnson continued.

The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose, he concluded.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.